The idea that the British people are on the brink of “liberation” from the European Union is starting to look very odd indeed. The evidence increasingly suggests that by the middle of the next decade, we may very well still be fully bound by most of the key terms and conditions of EU membership.

Yet while we may be obliged to accept EU laws and regulations affecting the single market and the customs union and still have to pay into the EU budget, the British people may notice one difference: we will have neither voice nor vote in determining European laws and regulations. We will be law-takers, not lawmakers.

There is likely to be another serious inconvenience to doctrinaire Eurosceptics: the UK may not be able to actually implement any of the promised “amazing trade deals” with the rest of the world until the mid-2020s. In the meantime, it should be noted, Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are indeed already busy finalising or negotiating some amazing new trade deals. But these are with the EU, not the UK.

Legally, we are on course to leave the EU next March; that’s when the period allowed under article 50 for negotiating the principles of a new relationship with the EU expires. We then have a further short period, until the end of 2020, to finalise a new, full-scale trade and cooperation treaty with Europe.

The trouble is that – outside the May cabinet – no one any longer really believes in this sort of timetable. It is conceivable, but improbable, that the article 50 deadline could be extended by a very short period, but there will be serious legal problems to face. What is more likely is that the subsequent transition (or implementation period), during which the substance of a new treaty would have to be agreed, could be extended.

Guest wrote:The idea that the British people are on the brink of “liberation” from the European Union is starting to look very odd indeed. The evidence increasingly suggests that by the middle of the next decade, we may very well still be fully bound by most of the key terms and conditions of EU membership.

Yet while we may be obliged to accept EU laws and regulations affecting the single market and the customs union and still have to pay into the EU budget, the British people may notice one difference: we will have neither voice nor vote in determining European laws and regulations. We will be law-takers, not lawmakers.

There is likely to be another serious inconvenience to doctrinaire Eurosceptics: the UK may not be able to actually implement any of the promised “amazing trade deals” with the rest of the world until the mid-2020s. In the meantime, it should be noted, Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are indeed already busy finalising or negotiating some amazing new trade deals. But these are with the EU, not the UK.

Legally, we are on course to leave the EU next March; that’s when the period allowed under article 50 for negotiating the principles of a new relationship with the EU expires. We then have a further short period, until the end of 2020, to finalise a new, full-scale trade and cooperation treaty with Europe.

The trouble is that – outside the May cabinet – no one any longer really believes in this sort of timetable. It is conceivable, but improbable, that the article 50 deadline could be extended by a very short period, but there will be serious legal problems to face. What is more likely is that the subsequent transition (or implementation period), during which the substance of a new treaty would have to be agreed, could be extended.

"What is Labour’s position?Leader Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out another vote on Brexit, insisting Labour will respect the original result while continuing to pursue a new customs union with the EU.

Speaking on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show in January, Corbyn said his party had demanded a meaningful vote in Parliament on the terms of deal, but emphasised: “We’re not asking for a second referendum.”

Isn't there some kind of legal thingybob which says that Her Majesty's Opposition are compelled to challenge the government and hold them to account at all times (or words to that effect)?

It might not go down too well if Corbyn just went on telly and said "Seriously, vote for the other lot this time around and then, if it all goes to shit, vote for us in 2022"

The must be some way around that though.It'd be a bit underhanded to just deliberately run a shitty campaign in order to lose but there must be some way of achieving the same thing without breaking "the rules".Maybe only stand with 100 candidates or something?

Isn't there some kind of legal thingybob which says that Her Majesty's Opposition are compelled to challenge the government and hold them to account at all times (or words to that effect)?

It might not go down too well if Corbyn just went on telly and said "Seriously, vote for the other lot this time around and then, if it all goes to shit, vote for us in 2022"

The must be some way around that though.It'd be a bit underhanded to just deliberately run a shitty campaign in order to lose but there must be some way of achieving the same thing without breaking "the rules".Maybe only stand with 100 candidates or something?

I'm not aware of such a thingybob.

I don't think Labour's 'laissez faire' Brexit policy (as far as I understand it) is anything other than a default position. Brexit could only ever be a poison chalice for the poor fuckers who found themselves having to implement it and Labour's only game card (on this at least) is it isn't them.

Perhaps there is some merit in your suggestion that they should 'come clean' - but if I was a political strategist I would advise that they continue to relax, bumble along and try to look normal in the hope that the other side implode completely.

Isn't there some kind of legal thingybob which says that Her Majesty's Opposition are compelled to challenge the government and hold them to account at all times (or words to that effect)?

It might not go down too well if Corbyn just went on telly and said "Seriously, vote for the other lot this time around and then, if it all goes to shit, vote for us in 2022"

The must be some way around that though.It'd be a bit underhanded to just deliberately run a shitty campaign in order to lose but there must be some way of achieving the same thing without breaking "the rules".Maybe only stand with 100 candidates or something?

I'm not aware of such a thingybob.

I don't think Labour's 'laissez faire' Brexit policy (as far as I understand it) is anything other than a default position. Brexit could only ever be a poison chalice for the poor fuckers who found themselves having to implement it and Labour's only game card (on this at least) is it isn't them.

Perhaps there is some merit in your suggestion that they should 'come clean' - but if I was a political strategist I would advise that they continue to relax, bumble along and try to look normal in the hope that the other side implode completely.

Yep. Good advice. Carry on being an anti semitic party. You and canny feel right at home politically then.

After the full, grim reckoning is given to the British people, the Tories could well be out for a generation.

And deservedly so. Take a look at the thread "What have the Tories done for us" - basically tumbleweed when it comes to actual achievement.

Why would Labour want to throw away such advantage by taking over anything to do with Brexit, Austerity, The NHS Crisis, etc etc ?

Entirely sensible - and something I've advocated since the result.

They caused it, through Cameron's weakness allied to a cancerous desire by some within their ranks to split their party.

Treeza has carried on the 'weak and unstable' tradition.

They can have all the blame, and they deserve it.

You are aware that the "Vote Leave" Campaign was chaired by Labour MP Gisela Stuart You are aware that many large Unions urged their members to vote leaveYou are aware that many Labour MP's campaigned to vote leave

You are aware that the "Britain Stronger in Europe" Campaign was led by Will Straw, David Cameron and George OsborneBacked by Nicola Sturgeon

And where was Jeremy Corbyn?

"But Mr Corbyn, who is more Eurosceptic than his predecessors and has said he rates his passion for the EU as seven out of 10, has had a lower profile than many in Labour would have liked and has declined to share a platform with figures from other parties."

Among minor parties, the Socialist Labour Party, the Communist Party, Britain First,[98] the British National Party (BNP),[99] Éirígí,[100] Respect Party,[101] Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC),[102] the Social Democratic Party,[103] Liberal Party,[104] and Independence from Europe[105]

Among minor parties, the Socialist Labour Party, the Communist Party, Britain First,[98] the British National Party (BNP),[99] Éirígí,[100] Respect Party,[101] Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC),[102] the Social Democratic Party,[103] Liberal Party,[104] and Independence from Europe[105]

Corbyn is being smart and waiting for Brexit to be such a shitshow (or not) that he can then come out strongly one way or the other. It's not entirely what I'd like to see but sometimes you have to play this game. My confidence in the British people is so low I don't care anymore, Corbyn knows better than most of them and has proved that time and time again, what with Iraq, Afghanistan, Windrush, the election last year, his policies, etc.

He also needs to talk to more than just Labour members, which was the mistake Labour has been making. We need him in Downing Street more than ever.